PDA

View Full Version : Brady Campaigns true form is coming out


Charliegone
04-02-2005, 1:18 PM
Here it is, the true form of the Brady's, as if we hadn't seen it coming.

From the Brady bunch site:

California: Handgun Sales Remain Down Near Record Low – 2nd Lowest in 30 Years
The California Department of Justice released handgun sales statistics for 2004 showing that handgun sales in the state remain near all-time lows, demonstrating that most California families do not want handguns in their homes or near their children. Handgun sales in 2004 were the second lowest recorded in the state in over 30 years, since the state began tracking sales, even as population has soared. Handgun sales peaked at 433,822 in 1993 and have dropped to 145,335 in 2004. California, which accounts for one out of every eight Americans, is a bellwether for future trends.



"California families do not want handguns in their homes or near their children."

Are they serious?

Charliegone
04-02-2005, 1:18 PM
Here it is, the true form of the Brady's, as if we hadn't seen it coming.

From the Brady bunch site:

California: Handgun Sales Remain Down Near Record Low – 2nd Lowest in 30 Years
The California Department of Justice released handgun sales statistics for 2004 showing that handgun sales in the state remain near all-time lows, demonstrating that most California families do not want handguns in their homes or near their children. Handgun sales in 2004 were the second lowest recorded in the state in over 30 years, since the state began tracking sales, even as population has soared. Handgun sales peaked at 433,822 in 1993 and have dropped to 145,335 in 2004. California, which accounts for one out of every eight Americans, is a bellwether for future trends.



"California families do not want handguns in their homes or near their children."

Are they serious?

Charliegone
04-02-2005, 1:35 PM
Also just for fun you can look at this website and see how "left leaning" California is. Apparently there are a lot of conservatives than you think.

http://www.texafornian.com/Archives/2004-11-08.html

RRangel
04-02-2005, 3:23 PM
No mention of the insane laws that have been introduced in California in just a few short years. By not mentioning this and the outright hostility that the state has shown to gun owners and firearms discredits this statement.

Gun owners can not expect any reality from this victim disarmament group.

Inoxmark
04-02-2005, 3:38 PM
I am working hard on improving these stats for 2005 http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif

bwiese
04-02-2005, 3:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Charliegone:
Also just for fun you can look at this website and see how "left leaning" California is. Apparently there are a lot of conservatives than you think.

http://www.texafornian.com/Archives/2004-11-08.html </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Unfortunately that map, while making us look in good shape due to physical area, doesn't show populations/densities.

You'll see that Dems = 5.725M, and Rep = 4.684M, about a 10% margin across the state. That's magnified to almost 20% margins in metro areas.

Electorally, we're toast in CA. The best we can expect is holding actions. Whether you like it or not, Repubs will continue to lose if their candidates tout antiabortion rhetoric - tossing aside gun rights at the same time by making themselves a nonviabile candidate. If abortion is taken off the table, some centrists and generally conservative 'Blue Dog' Democrats in Central Valley etc areas will vote Republican.

Bill Wiese
San Jose

dave3006
04-02-2005, 9:12 PM
Yep. Lets support ripping the living, unborn children from the wombs of women so I can have a new AR-15.

I would rather lose elections than become like the socialist immoral demoncrats.

dave3006
04-03-2005, 8:00 AM
After thinking about it, Republicans should also be in favor of:

1. Universal free healthcare
2. Amnesty for all illegals and open boarders
3. Marraige for homos
4. Higher income taxes on the rich
5. Increased welfare

Why stop at abortion. We'd get plenty of additional votes, right? I bet I would get an AR and an AK then.

- The problem is that the majority of the PEOPLE in this state are evil. THEY need to change not us.

jdberger
04-03-2005, 12:30 PM
One of the strengths of the Republicans is that people usually know where they stand. If they start changing their tune simply to placate a voting bloc, they lose that legitimacy.

However, I've always thought that the Repub party line on abortion/contraception was ridiculous. So is the line on gay marraige - but I live in the Bay Area and don't percieve gays as three horned monsters.

If Repubs want to claim that they stand for individual freedoms, they can't pick and choose.

Bill is right when he cliams that Republicans are toast over the abortion issue. Abortion rights advocates are single issue voters, too. And they are much more organized than us gun folk. At the drop of a hat, with a few phone calls they can get 50 people with signs, drums and loudspeakers to protest or support anyone they want. Us gun folk can't/won't do that. We talk a good game, but a very small minority actually is willing to get out there and do something (me included).

Numbers influence politics. It is estimated that for every person out on the street, 100 agree and are staying home. Sure, we vote pretty well, we dumped a lot of Clinton cronies in '94 - but it didn't happen in CA. We need to learn how to organize from the left.

bwiese
04-03-2005, 1:31 PM
For those commenting on my post above, all I said was that that was reality of California politics - I didn't say I was in support of abortion (though I have little problem with termination in 1st 3 weeks as I regard that as mere cell growth).

Numerous surveys/polls indicate that, while Calif is generally more conservative than its voting patterns, so-called 'choice' (their term) issue continually gives the Demos a few percent margin and is key reason for reg. Republicans crossover-voting for Democrats; it is #1 issue in many middle-to-upper income districts where voter participation is high and ranks #1 against concerns about gun control (which ranks 6th or 7th in relation to that).

And JDBerger above is right, esp if contraception issues can be separated from 'choice' issues.

Furuthermore, Repub posturing about choice in state elections is moot due to many federal issues involved anyway!

But when Repubs keep running avowedly "pro-life" candidates that aren't smart enough to keep their mouth shut (remember the crashing flames of Dan Lungren?) even when they know which way the wind is blowing, they keep losing.

This p*sses me off because they're risking my future via tax increases and even further erosions of my gun rights.

And the danger here is that EVERYTHING many of us care about is effectively tied to choice, not just gun issues - lower taxes, school quality, government efficiency, etc.

People say that Tom McClintock would've run OK if Arnold hadn't been running for Gov. I'm not sure of that at all - Arnie got extremely rare crossover votes from Demo to Repub that McClintock could never have gotten even against Cruz Bustamente, and the 'choice' issue would have been the big thing.

So what it boils down to is that the so-called 'pro-choice' vote is much much stronger than the anti-gun vote. And we keep ignoring that in CA. This will NOT go away in CA and will only magnify over time.

I'm just saying the disparity in voter subsets is large enough that if a non-Bible-thumper Repub, of reasonably good appearance/ popularity/ sanity were to keep his mouth shut on abortion, he could still win against a Demo even if avowing that 'assault weapons' should legalized. Unlike on East coast (MA, NY metro areas) gun issues are, despite media hype, of relatively low priority and people will vote their pocketbook if 'choice' issue off table.

The logical extension of this is that if you're a near-single-issue voter in CA who votes 'pro-life' anywhere near a metro area, there's a good chance, in the end result, that you're really voting pro-tax and anti-gun. Sounds strange, but it's the end result (election) that counts.


Bill Wiese
San Jose

bwiese
04-03-2005, 1:37 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by dave3006:

1. Universal free healthcare
2. Amnesty for all illegals and open boarders
3. Marraige for homos
4. Higher income taxes on the rich
5. Increased welfare

Why stop at abortion. We'd get plenty of additional votes, right? I bet I would get an AR and an AK then.

- The problem is that the majority of the PEOPLE in this state are evil. THEY need to change not us. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Dave, yes, yes, I agree with you.

All I'm saying is that if the 'choice' issue is reduced in magnitude, we might have a chance of further winnings and defer some of the evils you've listed above.

The prob is the Repubs - in CA - run the risk they are so right (correct) - that they'll never win another major election.

Otherwise, voting for the side that keeps losing will just accelerate the listed evils above.


Bill

dave3006
04-03-2005, 2:38 PM
The real problem is that the majority of the people in this state are theives. People use the ballot box to steal things they did not earn from others. Gov't giveaways. The gov't takes it by the use or threat of force. This is socialism. This is CA.

I have a simpler idea. Require a test of each voter (in English!) on the basics of the US Constitution. 90% passing grade allows a person to vote.

Problem solved. We get our republic and our freedom back.

jdberger
04-03-2005, 2:59 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Require a test of each voter (in English!) on the basics of the US Constitution. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poll taxes and poll tests are illegal under the constitution. Dave, would YOU pass the test? http://www.calguns.net/cowboy.gif

And I'm with Bill on the McClintock thing. Idealogical purity has no place in modern politics - except for on the fringes. NO ideology solves all problems. The super-libertarians and the super-communists both help to shape the debate - they help to educate us on the issues - however, the successful politicians moderate the message and find political compromises.

Unfortunately, the RKBA compromises have not been going our way. Because the other side owns the legislature, we don't have an opportunity to shape the debate.

ONE way to do this is redistricting. Like Arnie or not, for now, this is our best bet.

dave3006
04-03-2005, 3:52 PM
Isn't it funny that demonstrating a working knowledge of the constitution is illegal. BUT, waiting periods, tests, and approved weapons for the second ammendment is okay?

The constitution guarrantees you a right to own any small arm you want and carry it wherever you want with no licenses, tests, or fees. If the socialists want to test me to own a gun, they can test the bottom feeding underclass before they vote for more goodies from the nanny state.

But, we gave up the constitution a long time ago. That is why we are in the mess we are in now.

bwiese
04-03-2005, 3:56 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by jdberger:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Require a test of each voter (in English!) on the basics of the US Constitution. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Poll taxes and poll tests are illegal under the constitution. Dave, would YOU pass the test?
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Well, illegal by interpretation of the Constitution.

Poll taxes certainly so - much like voting only for landowners instead of all citizenry.

A poll test MIGHT conceivably be able to be crafted to meet constitutional scrutiny for initiative/referendum issues because these require some level reading & understanding -- as opposed to a personal vote choice between Mr. X and Mr. Y, which could not be subject to any sort of test. If test could be made in support of 'valid voter = informed voter'

<LI> wasn't perceived as 'elitist';
<LI> was only for 'question' items, not people;
<LI> tested only items directly related to questions to be voted on;

...it might get somewhere, but probably a lot of hand-wringing.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I'm with Bill on the McClintock thing. Idealogical purity has no place in modern politics </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I didn't say I didn't like Tom McClintock. In fact he's more centrist/libertarian than other Repubs and is a breath of fresh air compared to Dannyboy Lungren.

Tom McC's a great guy and I agree with him on generally everything. But between his perceived excessive pro-life stance, a less-than-media-savvy campaign, lack of money, and the appearance (at least) of a bland, non-dynamic personality, he couldn't make it state-wide against the Arnie publicity -- nor against the Cruzamonte since Arnie got so many crossover votes Tom McC could never get).

Bill Wiese
San Jose

jdberger
04-03-2005, 4:38 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Well, illegal by interpretation of the Constitution. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bill, even a strict reading of the Constitution is an "interpretation."

Re the Poll Test, that would be quite a hurdle. I've always preferred Heinlein's requirement of military service for citizenship. We could have a lot of fun in the Bay Area with that one. I'd love to plunk down a Wal*Mart in the middle of Berkeley.

And regarding Tom McC...I like him too. But I also like Ayn Rand. Tom has some great ideas and is a great voice in politics, but as a counterbalance to the other side. I think that a 2 man race between him and Arianna would have been a hoot. This state needs that kind of entertainment!! http://calguns.net/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif

maxicon
04-04-2005, 9:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> I've always preferred Heinlein's requirement of military service for citizenship. We could have a lot of fun in the Bay Area with that one. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Interestingly, Kerry had a plan posted on mandatory service (not necessarily military) for high school graduation, as well as a service-for-education program. It sounded more like something his wife Teresa came up with.

http://www.mcgath.com/kerryslavery.html

He pulled it from his website once the word got out and people started squawking (can you say flip-flop?), and he had no details to support such an ambitious program (also sounds familiar).

I agree that involuntary servitude of minors is not a good approach, but I like the idea of trading an education for service. We do that with military service currently, but other options would be a good bet, I believe.

jdberger
04-04-2005, 10:59 AM
Heinlein's idea was for voluntary military service. For putting your life on the line, you were allowed to vote in elections. There was nothing involuntary about it. Though he mentioned it in a number of books, Starship Troopers is the one I remember most.

The idea behind it is that citzens willing risk life and limb for their country have a greater sense of civic duty...

50 Freak
04-04-2005, 1:11 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content"> Heinlein's idea was for voluntary military service. For putting your life on the line, you were allowed to vote in elections. There was nothing involuntary about it. Though he mentioned it in a number of books, Starship Troopers is the one I remember most.

The idea behind it is that citzens willing risk life and limb for their country have a greater sense of civic duty... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Actually one of the biggest problems we have in California is illegal immigrants. This I believe is brought on by our inept INS dept. I believe we should streamline the wait for becoming a citizen of the US. If you want to become a citizen of the US, then you have to join our military for 8 years. Show that you want to defend you new homeland and as a result, the US will grant to you "accelerated" citizenship for you and your immediate family (no your sister's mailman won't get it). If in the course of your tour of duty and you are killed. You immediate family is automatically given citizenship as a reward.

I think this is fair. We will take the burden off our INS dept, fill our ranks in the military and at the same time get a crap load of people who have demonstrated thier loyalty to this great nation.

jdberger
04-04-2005, 1:27 PM
Not a bad idea. However, the military is presently turning folks away who are already citizens. It is meeting it's recruitment goals and rejecting folks who haven't graduated from high-school...

04-10-2005, 9:35 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by bwiese:
Electorally, we're toast in CA. The best we can expect is holding actions. Whether you like it or not, Repubs will continue to lose if their candidates tout antiabortion rhetoric - tossing aside gun rights at the same time by making themselves a nonviabile candidate. If abortion is taken off the table, some centrists and generally conservative 'Blue Dog' Democrats in Central Valley etc areas will vote Republican. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

However, you are reading more into the picture than that which is really there.

It will take more than just stacking more Republicans on the high side of the teeter-totter to gain ground on the "gun issue". Thus, all the votes in the world for the party are worthless even if they're being cast by the fence-sitters who'd otherwise vote Democrat. Overall, I don't believe that the Republican party as a whole is or will be the saviour of gun rights nor is it anything more than a mediocre defense (the holding pattern) of what is still left of the second amendment currently.

This is especially true in California where almost unanimously, the guys with {R}s postscripting their names are lukewarm supporters (or in other cases, downright antis) of firearm rights.

04-10-2005, 9:53 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by 50 Freak:
Actually one of the biggest problems we have in California is illegal immigrants.[/B] </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I disagree. Most of the "issue" is hype. It's no different than so-called "assault weapons" being pounded into the public's head over and over again.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">This I believe is brought on by our inept INS dept. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

That, and the desire for cheap labor. The influx of so-called "illegals" is the direct result of the big "welcome" mat spread out by U.S. based businesses that seek low-skilled employees to exploit.
It's a "cultural thing" in the U.S. that dates back to the beginning of our history.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I believe we should streamline the wait for becoming a citizen of the US. If you want to become a citizen of the US, then you have to join our military for 8 years. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

There's a difference between citizenship and being a resident alien though. Most here illegally aren't gunning for citizenship or even permanence in the country.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Show that you want to defend you new homeland and as a result, the US will grant to you "accelerated" citizenship for you and your immediate family (no your sister's mailman won't get it). If in the course of your tour of duty and you are killed. You immediate family is automatically given citizenship as a reward. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I remember reading that a fair number of military personnel were not citizens. Isn't this how it already works currently? I thought it was something similar to the above scenario but I'm out of the loop on military stuff.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think this is fair. We will take the burden off our INS dept, fill our ranks in the military and at the same time get a crap load of people who have demonstrated thier loyalty to this great nation. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I don't believe that anyone need show their loyalty to be a citizen. Further, if we are truly equal under the law, then why should the soil-born citizens have to only exit the birth canal to enjoy the benefits of citizenship while others must risk their lives to receive the same?
The precedent suggested here, although likely unintentional, is downright scary, just as the mention of "poll tests" are too. Good grief on that one!

---

I personally don't see any good coming from wishing more power to be placed in the hands of them the government to oppress we the people.
These types of suggestions run contrary to the founding principals of this country, IMO.

imported_1911_sfca
04-11-2005, 12:03 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't believe that anyone need show their loyalty to be a citizen. Further, if we are truly equal under the law, then why should the soil-born citizens have to only exit the birth canal to enjoy the benefits of citizenship while others must risk their lives to receive the same?
The precedent suggested here, although likely unintentional, is downright scary, just as the mention of "poll tests" are too. Good grief on that one! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Keep in mind.. the requirements for naturalization are quite different than the requirements to be a citizen by birth. For the former, you do have to show loyalty by taking a pledge, along with passing English language and American History tests.

Imagine if natural born Americans had to take those History tests... We'd have a lot less citizens among us.

04-11-2005, 12:46 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by San Francisco, 1911:
Keep in mind.. the requirements for naturalization are quite different than the requirements to be a citizen by birth. For the former, you do have to show loyalty by taking a pledge, along with passing English language and American History tests.

Imagine if natural born Americans had to take those History tests... We'd have a lot less citizens among us. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree, but I was speaking to the hypothetical suggesting that compulsory military service be required of anyone seeking U.S. citizenship.
To me, my citizenship was established by exiting a womb and I agree again that if it were dependant on passing a test, many would not be citizens. However, I think that it's a bad idea to suggest such things in seriousness (I realize you weren't... I hope) lest we start cutting the 14th Amendment to shreds even further.

BTW - Speaking of the INS citizenship test:

(link) ( http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:KRkfAMSqQ-0J:uscis.gov/graphics/services/natz/100q.pdf+citizenship+history+test&hl=en)

It's not exactly the hardest one I've ever seen. But can you pass it?

More interesting is question #87 in the sample. I take great issue with that garbage being forced on naturalized citizens.

Rights are not bestowed upon us by any person.
http://www.calguns.net/banghead.gif

Spotted Owl
04-12-2005, 7:05 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I don't believe that anyone need show their loyalty to be a citizen. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I agree completely. Government should instead show loyalty to its citizens by not enacting laws that restrict our rights.